LC9s PRO - no safety or mag disconnect

[TarDevil]

You can use it or not...

Many of us so have carried pistols with a thumb safety would discourage such practice. By personal experience I can tell you that safeties can and WILL get moved while carrying. And yes, I use good quality holsters. Leaving it off and expecting it to be "off" when you need it is dangerous.
If your gun has a safety, swiping it off should be part of your draw routine when practicing.

 

[beamon]

Many of us so have carried pistols with a thumb safety would discourage such practice. By personal experience I can tell you that safeties can and WILL get moved while carrying. And yes, I use good quality holsters. Leaving it off and expecting it to be "off" when you need it is dangerous.
If your gun has a safety, swiping it off should be part of your draw routine when practicing.

No argument with your thesis, TD, but there are some thumb safetys out there that require a great deal of force to move in either direction.

I had a S&W Shield pass through my hands recently. Its safety was actually hard to move even with a concerted effort on the part of the shooter. I find it difficult to think that a safety like that might move accidently. In fact, my short fingers & thumb couldn't effectively swipe that thing when I tried.

You're correct, however, in saying that anything's possible and appropriate training is the prudent thing to do.

 

[TarDevil]

No argument with your thesis, TD, but there are some thumb safetys out there that require a great deal of force to move in either direction.

I had a S&W Shield pass through my hands recently. Its safety was actually hard to move even with a concerted effort on the part of the shooter. I find it difficult to think that a safety like that might move accidently. In fact, my short fingers & thumb couldn't effectively swipe that thing when I tried.

You're correct, however, in saying that anything's possible and appropriate training is the prudent thing to do.

Interesting that you used the Shield as an example. On a past thread about the LC9s this same discussion came up. A contributer cited several personal experiences carrying his Shield with the safety off only to find it on when drawing for timed drills:

I own the shield...
I purchased my first one before they offered a no-safety version. I carried it in an IWB holster (crossbreed mini-tuck, can't say enough good things about that holster) with the manual safety off. over time, I had several instances practicing at the range where I drew only to find the safety engaged (I holstered it with the safety off...) Almost broke the trigger trying to shoot a timed round. Once S&W offered the shield w/o the safety, i sold mine to a friend who really wanted one with the safety, & bought myself a new Shield w/o the safety. great weapon.

Your description of the Shield safety is spot on, though, and exactly why I would never buy that gun with a safety.

 

[likesguns]

I never really cared for the lc9 but the lc9s did seem a little more appealing,the pro is definetly a strong improvement inmho.
I only wishes they would offer a SR9c pro,I would trade my SR9c off in a heart beat.

 

[Bush Pilot]

Of course...I buy an LC9s and then they come out with the LC9s I really want .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I think you and I are paying dues in the same club :-(

 

[TarDevil]

I think you and I are paying dues in the same club :-(

Me three.

 

[ngnrd]

I was able to pick up my PRO today. Won't be able to shoot it until after New Years. I did field strip it a few times just to get used to it. I timed it after the third run through and it took just under 45 seconds from ready to fire to fully field stripped and back to reassembled and ready to fire. Turns out that I don't need to use a tool to remove the takedown pin. It falls out with just a slight tap. I may give it a thorough cleaning tonight if I have time after packing my gear for the hunting trip.

 

[greyeyezz]

The Pro sounds good to me, in that it has a stiffer trigger pull; however that also comes with a longer pull. Not sure why.

I would think nothing is changed between triggers on the S/Pro.

 

[ulflyer]

I get emails from Ruger announcing sales and new products and the one for the Pro showed a chart with the trigger pulls for both in both pounds and distance of travel. They say its ideal for LAO's. Unfortunately I'm unable to copy the email in order to post it here.

The chart, while not precise, shows approx 5 1/2lb, 0.4" travel for the S, and 6 1/2lb,0.7" travel for the Pro. At least thats the way I read the chart.

 

[Sigokat]

The thumb safety and mag disconnect are draw back of the LC9s, for me. I hate mag disconnects, like most people, for all the obvious reasons.

The LC9s thumb safety was just too in the way on the small pocket pistol. I always worried about accidentally engaging it as it was exactly where my right thumb rested, and was very easy to engage.

I sold mine, even though the trigger was pretty nice for those reasons as well as the size difference between it and my long time everyday carry Kahr PM9.

 

[kcofohio]

ulflyer, with the Pro not having the outward safety, the longer and heavier trigger pull would probably be to avoid AD. And I believe you read the chart right.

 

[beamon]

Interesting that you used the Shield as an example. On a past thread about the LC9s this same discussion came up. A contributer cited several personal experiences carrying his Shield with the safety off only to find it on when drawing for timed drills:

I'll be darned! I've read others describing the Shield safety as I have, but your report says that there are others that must be considerably easier to move. Guess it all comes down to the fact that these are mass produced guns and tolerances are not spot on for every finished piece.

 

[ngnrd]

[Ruger's correspondence] while not precise, shows approx 5 1/2lb, 0.4" travel for the S, and 6 1/2lb,0.7" travel for the Pro. At least thats the way I read the chart.

I just measured the trigger weight on my PRO using an inexpensive spring-type trigger scale made by Wheeler (repeated a dozen or so times). With the scale's 'hook' approximately centered on the trigger, I got a fairly consistent reading of just over 5 pounds, with a couple of pulls reading a bit more - up to just under 5-1/2 pounds.

I'm not sure how to measure the length of pull. But I'd give that a shot if someone would tell me where/how to measure it. (I'm assuming it would be at the center of the trigger, not at the tip, right?) Does the travel length include the take-up, or not?

 

[pinehtr]

That trigger pull and weight is disappointing .Its slightly heaver and just as long as my Kahr CM9.

 

[herrwalther]

The chart, while not precise, shows approx 5 1/2lb, 0.4" travel for the S, and 6 1/2lb,0.7" travel for the Pro. At least thats the way I read the chart.

Yuck. Must have missed that email from Ruger, as I signed up for them too. That trigger pull and length might put me off from the Pro. I was thinking/hoping the Pro would have the same pull weight and travel as the LC9s, which I liked when tried at a gun shop. Will have to find a Pro to fondle now, and the PPS moved back to the top of the buy list.

 

[ulflyer]

That trigger pull and weight is disappointing .Its slightly heaver and just as long as my Kahr CM9.

We like diff things and thats why theres so many choices out there. I like the long, extremely smooth pull of the Kahrs and have two of them. No little rachety glitch at the end before it lets off to cause me to throw off, like I did repeatedly with the Glock 42.
Loved that 380 and its absolute reliability, but couldn't stay on target with it. So it had to go in favor of an LC9s which I can shoot with decent accuracy. Then I picked up my second Kahr in 380 because of their smooth trigger pull. Overall, I prefer the LC9s, but would like just a tad harder....or longer....trigger pull.

Will have to check out the PRO.

 

[johnnylaw53]

I wish they would come out with a LC9 without the magazine disconnect. I love my lc9 have no problems with it. Just don't like the magazine disconnect. When I first got it I read what everyone was saying about the hard trigger pull I began thinking that my pistol was broken as the pull seemed fine to me. After awhile I just concluded that the pull felt fine to me as it replaced a j frame .38 that I been carrying off duty for many years. I would be interested in the new pro without the magazine disconnect but without a thumb safety I will pass.

 

[pinehtr]

Maybe just maybe that chart is comparing the LC9 with the LC9s Pro.

 

[toivo]

The Pro sounds good to me, in that it has a stiffer trigger pull; however that also comes with a longer pull. Not sure why. I really like my "S" but have always thought the trigger pull was a bit too easy.

Maybe there will eventually be a trigger retrofit for the "S".

I do like the safety. You can use it or not; its a choice the PRO does not have.

I'm confused -- where are you getting that it has a stiffer trigger pull? I don't see that in any of the links.

I just bought an LC9s, and I love it, but I'd probably trade up to the Pro if it is exactly the same but without the mag safety and thumb safety. If the Pro has a stiffer trigger pull, I'll stay with the standard model.

 

[ulflyer]

I got the info from an email Ruger sends out to those signed up for it. It showed
a chart with the trigger pull weight and length of travel. HOWEVER, there appears to be some doubt about the validity of this info based on Thread 38 above where a new owner, NGNRD, of a PRO found the trigger pull to be just over 5 Lbs which is about what the LC9s is.

 

[toivo]

I got the info from an email Ruger sends out to those signed up for it. It showed
a chart with the trigger pull weight and length of travel. HOWEVER, there appears to be some doubt about the validity of this info based on Thread 38 above where a new owner, NGNRD, of a PRO found the trigger pull to be just over 5 Lbs which is about what the LC9s is.

Hmm... If the e-mail showed the chart in the image below, it's comparing the LC9s with the standard LC9, not the LC9s with the LC9s PRO.

I really hope the LC9s PRO has the same trigger pull as the LC9s. If it does, that makes it just about the perfect "pocket 9" in my book.

 

[ulflyer]

Toivo: you're absolutely right. Thats the email i was referring to and now its obvious I
totally misinterpreted the chart. Never occurred to me they were comparing it to the older LC9 and I jumped to conclusion with some wording they used about it being ideal for LEO's, etc, etc.

My apologies to all for the bum info.

 

[toivo]

Toivo: you're absolutely right. Thats the email i was referring to and now its obvious I
totally misinterpreted the chart. Never occurred to me they were comparing it to the older LC9 and I jumped to conclusion with some wording they used about it being ideal for LEO's, etc, etc.

My apologies to all for the bum info.

No worries at all. I'm just relieved to find out, and I think I'm going to get me one.

Anybody wanna buy an LC9s with about 50 rounds through it? If you like thumb safeties and/or mag disconnect safeties, this one's for you!

 

[kcofohio]

Based on the LC9s®, a compact, striker-fired, 9mm pistol that the company released in July of this year, the LC9s® Pro contains many of the same advanced features, but is offered without the thumb-operated external manual safety and magazine disconnect. The all-new Pro version is designed to meet law enforcement specifications as a back-up gun for high-stress situations when there may not be time to deactivate an external manual safety.

I think this part of the email that led to the belief of the comparison being the LC9S and the Pro came from.

 

[short barrel]

Haven't seen the Pro, but the idea of a striker fired pistol with no safety is a thing I don't want in my house. I've never understood the mindset of people who don't like a safety on a striker fired gun, when all they have to do is not engage it. It seems that if the afety is there, they seem suddenly to need it.

Me, my lifetime of auto pistols have had a safety that must be flicked down, like a 1911. If it were not present, I'd be uncomfortable. A thumb safety does not slow down your time in getting off a round. It's disengaged as you draw. It seems these days that so many buyers of pistols are vastly inexperienced and are afraid that they'll get flustered if the gun is needed and fail to take the safety off. I don't think those people should carry any striker fired pistol. More Glocks have fired inadvertently due to the owner pressing the trigger than any other striker fired pistol. (No, I don't have data to back that up. It's just that accidental discharges of semi-autos are more prevalent in the news.) I'm 67 and have been shooting pistols since I was a teenager. I tell you plainly I would never own a Glock due to the lack of safety, not to mention the other negatives I wouldn't want to list because we all know what they are and I would just cause a rift.
Regarding the SR9, new or old, they have no accuracy sufficient beyond "usual" self defense needs." At 25 yards, they have the accuracy of a J frame 5-shot. Who needs a carry gun with 25 yard capability? That's a whole other consideration. For me, precise accuracy in a plastic striker fired gun is very much a consideration. I would not give that up to carry a more comfortable LC9 Pro, especially since it has no safety.

Don't mean to debate. Flicking the safety off is as natural as unzipping my pants before firing. That's just me. If you are young or fairly new to semi's, or if you've had limited experience with safeties, the no safety striker fired might be for you, except that those facts alone may mean it's definitely not for you.